If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

[Shlock Homes, the actual figures were given; there is nothing conflicting about them. Only you of all the people here don't seem to understand them. The police who had access to those records concluded they were significant enough to include in their arrest and search warrants. And I think that we can conclude that rodent defecation and eating patterns remain fairly stable. Frankly, I think at this point you're just fillibustering.]

Again, I still have to say that the scan numbers are inconsistent. Were there 50 scans or 16. They have to be clear about that when court time comes. Even an increase in scans doesn't prove something sinister happened. If they can't demonstrate when Annie's death was killed, they definitely cannot depend upon increased scans as a sign of guilt.

[The information that you mention is left out of arrest and search warrants because it isn't legally relevant, not because the police are used car salesmen. To borrow your broken down analogy, they would be salesmen who have to present their cars at length in court as smooth running.

Perhaps for the affidavit, they don't need to be so detailed. But I stand by my analogy, but you don't have to use car salesman. My point is that they leave out anything that could cast doubt upon Ray being the killer. You may not agree, but these warrants are subjective. The goal is to go after someone. You make the most convincing argument by keeping things vague where detail could cast doubt.

I agree that court is where things will be worked out in more detail. In the meantime, you could say that an innocent man is stuck behind bars while a killer is walking around free, maybe even taking credit for Annie's research.

["Years" is the plural of "year": The building was completed in 2007. As an animal technician who had to clean cages, Clark would certainly know something about the comings-and-going of researchers, lab techs, and animals techs. He would also know something about the busyness of the hallways. If he used G22 as a temporary hiding place for the body, which considering the evidence seems likely, he would have ample opportunity to reconnoiter. And we do not know whether Annie was supposed to be at Bennett's class at 10:30; we only know that the professor noticed her missing from a meeting by about noon. And, except for his porous alibi, where did Clark comment about anything?]

If Clark did make any other comments, they didn't put them in the affidavit. For example, if Clark had said 'Annie was coming out of G13 at around 12:30pm, and when I entered that room, [such and such a person] was in the room doing work'. We don't know if there are other people who said they also saw Annie at other times. They won't put that in a warrant to get Clark. They never mention in the affidavit that Clark claimed he saw her later, but no other researcher or lab worker ever said they saw her.

[I'm forced to quote myself and the police document: "The police statement is unequivocal. "The only card used to access G22 after the victim swiped into the Amistad building on September 8th" doesn't leave a shadow of a shadow to indicate that it means "the only one recorded scanning into G22 around the supposed time of her death (sometime after he scanned into G13)," as you claim. This is somewhere between wish fulfillment and total denial." That statement means what it says; I'm a professional writer; like others here, I know what words mean. I will leave it to those others to judge whether your unique reading holds water.

The warrant isn't written in the best English. I still believe the card access to G22 statement is open for interpretation. I will await a detailed analysis of the card swipes with actual time stamps to see if his swiping into G22 truly was exclusive to him. Again, we are assuming she was murdered at a particular time on a particular day, so we cannot say if swipes indicate guilt of anything other than someone just going about his business on a busier than normal day, on the first day of school.

Shlock, dried blood can certainly be transferred and/or remoistened in several ways. Moreover, we have no way of knowing whether he visited the car on his earlier trips out of the building during the day.

They were tracking his movements on surveillance footage. They never mention him going to his car at any other time. They would have included that information in the warrant, since it would be significant. We only hear about him leaving the building around the time of the fire alarm, then at the end of the day. There were other times when he took breaks and left the basement area, but no times were given on those.

Let's be clear: The notation about blood-like stains in the car appears in a September 15th/16th search warrant, that is a legal document identifying evidence that is being taken into custody for testing. (These search warrants, which were held to protect the defendant, were released only sometime thereafter.) Your apparent astonishment that the search warrant and/or the arrest warrant (issued on September 17th) didn't include the results of tests on evidence it had just procured is, to say the least, puzzling.

Do people who kill people at their workplace always make sense?

As I said before, they tested the sock and were able to quickly determine whose blood and DNA were on it in time for his arrest warrant (that was a three day period after finding the body, right?). Now, there are tests that could be done very quickly to determine if a stain is blood or rust, and if it's human or animal.
Anyway, your Sep 17th date is referring to the first warrant that was released, that didn't mention blood in the vehicle or at the apartment. I'm talking about the Oct 1st documents that mention those stains. There were two weeks for them to not only determine whether the blood was human or not, but also if it was Annie Le's. But they just leave it open for interpretation by mentioning the stains, but not saying why those are relevant to the case. I'll tell you why they leave it vague - so they can secure those items and the apartment for closer scrutiny. But to say that those stains show he killed her is misleading and should not be interpreted as more evidence of guilt.

Well, this new felony murder charge against RC has brought me full circle. I can't imagine what other felony besides rape, or attempted rape could apply in this case (but welcome any ideas from those who know more about felonies).

It makes sense to me that this was an impulsive crime of passion and explains why RC left [for LE to discover] all of the damning evidence that incriminates him and apparently no one else.

The Following User Says Thank You to PatientOne For This Useful Post:

Again, I still have to say that the scan numbers are inconsistent. Were there 50 scans or 16. They have to be clear about that when court time comes. Even an increase in scans doesn't prove something sinister happened. If they can't demonstrate when Annie's death was killed, they definitely cannot depend upon increased scans as a sign of guilt.[The individual swipe counts for G13 and G22 on the day of the murder are presented consistently in multiple documents. The "total 55 key card entries" clearly refer to Clark's total key card entries for rooms in addition to those specifically enumerated. In fact, a reference about swiping into other rooms appears just two sentences after that statement.

The spike in Clark's usage over a two-week can certainly be seen as significant when placed in context with other circumstantial and forensic evidence. In fact, the police paperwork does not place it as strikingly as they might have. To wit:

Daily Access to G13:For the 12 days from August 27-September 7: 0.08 visits per daySeptember 8th 5.00 visits(And remember, on September 9th, the day after the murder, Clark made two visits where he was observed interfering with probable evidence. In fact, the arrest warrant notes that he walked in and out of G13 "several times" while the police were there investigating.)

Daily Access to G22:For the 12 days from August 27th-September 7: 0.25 visits per daySeptember 8th 11.00 visits]

Perhaps for the affidavit, they don't need to be so detailed. But I stand by my analogy, but you don't have to use car salesman. My point is that they leave out anything that could cast doubt upon Ray being the killer. You may not agree, but these warrants are subjective. The goal is to go after someone. You make the most convincing argument by keeping things vague where detail could cast doubt.

I agree that court is where things will be worked out in more detail. In the meantime, you could say that an innocent man is stuck behind bars while a killer is walking around free, maybe even taking credit for Annie's research.[The purpose of a search warrant is to seek and secure evidence. The purpose of an arrest warrant is establishing probable cause for detention, not to present all of the evidence or even wait until it is all processed. You also ignore a salient fact: Both the prosecution and the defense argued that these court documents should not be released. It was actions by The Hartford Courant that convinced the judge to set them free.

Your final fantasy about a researcher/killer walking around free is based on nothing. Anyone familiar with colloborative scientific projects such as this could tell you that junior researchers such as Annie would work on one aspect or phrase of the study; their labors would be complemented and supplemented by other student researchers, all of whom would be guided and supervised by the older scientist who concocted it in the first place. In all the months since this story first broke, there hasn't been a meaningful peep that power struggles were taking place in this lab.]

If Clark did make any other comments, they didn't put them in the affidavit. For example, if Clark had said 'Annie was coming out of G13 at around 12:30pm, and when I entered that room, [such and such a person] was in the room doing work'. We don't know if there are other people who said they also saw Annie at other times. They won't put that in a warrant to get Clark. They never mention in the affidavit that Clark claimed he saw her later, but no other researcher or lab worker ever said they saw her.[Raymond Clark and his lawyer are definitely capable of speaking themselves. Be honest: If someone else observed Annie Le alive and well in G13 at 12:30, only the most imbecilic prosecutor or defense lawyer would not have addressed it immediately. Your last sentence is simply too unclear to understand or rebut.]

The warrant isn't written in the best English. I still believe the card access to G22 statement is open for interpretation. I will await a detailed analysis of the card swipes with actual time stamps to see if his swiping into G22 truly was exclusive to him. Again, we are assuming she was murdered at a particular time on a particular day, so we cannot say if swipes indicate guilt of anything other than someone just going about his business on a busier than normal day, on the first day of school.[/quote][This card access statement is written in fine English. In fact, it could hardly be more succinct or clear:"The only card used to access G22 after the victim swiped into the Amistad building on September 8th"

On the other hand, your interpretation of it is a flagrant attempt to make it vague so that it confirms your forced reading of the evidence."the only one recorded scanning into G22 around the supposed time of her death (sometime after he scanned into G13)"

As you can see, the statement makes no supposition about the particular time of the day she was murdered, only that Raymond Clark was the only person scanning into G22 after the victim arrived. Thus:Researcher 1: no visits.Researcher 2: no visits.Researcher 3: no visits.Researcher 4: no visits.Lab technician 1: no visits.Lab technician 2: no visits.Lab technician 3: no visits.Lab technician 4: no visits.Animal technician 1: no visits.Animal technician 2: no visits.Animal technician 3: no visits.
Raymond Clark: 11 visits.Since blood and a significant amount of other physical evidence was found in this room, I think that people without special axes to painfully grind can agree that it is more significant than you say.

The Following User Says Thank You to Chanler For This Useful Post:

Well, this new felony murder charge against RC has brought me full circle. I can't imagine what other felony besides rape, or attempted rape could apply in this case (but welcome any ideas from those who know more about felonies).

It makes sense to me that this was an impulsive crime of passion and explains why RC left [for LE to discover] all of the damning evidence that incriminates him and apparently no one else.

Hi, PatientOne, always nice to see your moniker. I believe that the felony murder charge was added because the prosecution realizes that something that might have started as one thing escalated to quite another. Clark's apparent need for a morning meeting about his complaints might have flooded over into a physical confrontation if she tried to leave. (I'm just hypothesizing here, but it's crossed my mind that some of the personal effects that Clark claims that Annie left with might still be missing because they were bloodied or damaged in the initial struggle. Getting rid of them early thus might have been a high priority.) As for overt sexual assault, I tend to be doubtful. I would not be surprised if Clark's focus on this petite, shapely young woman had a sexual aspect, but I suspect that things like that are all jumbled in his mind.

They were tracking his movements on surveillance footage. They never mention him going to his car at any other time. They would have included that information in the warrant, since it would be significant. We only hear about him leaving the building around the time of the fire alarm, then at the end of the day. There were other times when he took breaks and left the basement area, but no times were given on those.[Video footage outside the building does not cover every street or parking spot. And securing a search warrant for his personal car would certainly not require or necessitate a statement that he was carrying something! Clark left the building at least three times on killing day: for a break; for the fire alarm; and at the end of the day. At least you have ceased your reiteration about dried blood.]

As I said before, they tested the sock and were able to quickly determine whose blood and DNA were on it in time for his arrest warrant (that was a three day period after finding the body, right?). Now, there are tests that could be done very quickly to determine if a stain is blood or rust, and if it's human or animal.
Anyway, your Sep 17th date is referring to the first warrant that was released, that didn't mention blood in the vehicle or at the apartment. I'm talking about the Oct 1st documents that mention those stains. There were two weeks for them to not only determine whether the blood was human or not, but also if it was Annie Le's. But they just leave it open for interpretation by mentioning the stains, but not saying why those are relevant to the case. I'll tell you why they leave it vague - so they can secure those items and the apartment for closer scrutiny. But to say that those stains show he killed her is misleading and should not be interpreted as more evidence of guilt.[/quote][Your argument is with the independent crime lab, not with the police. Both the prosecution and defense have noted their incredible backlog, which sometimes apparently stretches more than 15,000 exhibits. The bloody sock was found on September 12th, not on the day the body was found. Those tests might have received top priority because this was the most prominent case in the state at this time and because police felt that they had felt the need to watch Clark's unexplained movements closely. The arrest warrant clearly notes that the tests on the gloves found at the same ceiling location had not been completed.

By mid-September, the police had already secured and served two search warrants for Raymond Clark's apartment without resorting to any adolescence pretenses. Samples of the relevant blood stains were secured long before October 1st. And stop tilting at windmills about people claiming "to say that those stains show he killed her." No one here has said any such thing.]

Hi, PatientOne, always nice to see your moniker. I believe that the felony murder charge was added because the prosecution realizes that something that might have started as one thing escalated to quite another. Clark's apparent need for a morning meeting about his complaints might have flooded over into a physical confrontation if she tried to leave. (I'm just hypothesizing here, but it's crossed my mind that some of the personal effects that Clark claims that Annie left with might still be missing because they were bloodied or damaged in the initial struggle. Getting rid of them early thus might have been a high priority.) As for overt sexual assault, I tend to be doubtful. I would not be surprised if Clark's focus on this petite, shapely young woman had a sexual aspect, but I suspect that things like that are all jumbled in his mind.

Thank you for you response Chanler, and I agree that "things like that are all jumbled in his mind". Or may be -- it's impossible to know, at least at this point. I definitely think it's likely that nitpicking Annie's work or general officious behavior may have been attempts of self-aggrandizement due to secret feelings for her.

More specifically though, I was thinking about the former HS girlfriend who said he raped her when she tried to break up with him. If RC had a history of battery, I'd feel differently.

Thank you for your replies Chanler. I still stand by my arguments. I think we both agree that the warrant doesn't have to go into detail to secure an arrest. Nor does it have to prove total guilt. That is up to the courts to decide.

And that is where my argument really begins and ends. Too many people are looking at what is in the warrants and concluding from what is there that Clark IS guilty. They feel that what has been presented is more than enough to convict him. What I'm trying to point out is that there isn't enough data displayed in those warrants to come to a definitive conclusion. I also wanted to point out that scan card evidence does not prove any wrong doing has taken place until they establish that Annie was indeed harmed soon after Clark entered G13.

Everyone needs to take a step back and wait for the trial before throwing away the key on Clark.

The Following User Says Thank You to Shlock Homes For This Useful Post:

Thank you for your replies Chanler. I still stand by my arguments. I think we both agree that the warrant doesn't have to go into detail to secure an arrest. Nor does it have to prove total guilt. That is up to the courts to decide.

And that is where my argument really begins and ends. Too many people are looking at what is in the warrants and concluding from what is there that Clark IS guilty. They feel that what has been presented is more than enough to convict him. What I'm trying to point out is that there isn't enough data displayed in those warrants to come to a definitive conclusion. I also wanted to point out that scan card evidence does not prove any wrong doing has taken place until they establish that Annie was indeed harmed soon after Clark entered G13.

Everyone needs to take a step back and wait for the trial before throwing away the key on Clark.

I agree with what someone else said earlier..... That you have some relation in some way, shape or form to Clark.... At first when I read your post I thought- WOW! If ever I am accused of a crime I would love this guy to be on the jury! And I was impressed with the many questions you raised. I also agree with a few others that your arguments allow for us to either rule out or rule in our own theories.

However, at this point, you are talking in so many circles that it exhausts the definition of the word tedious and your arguments lend themself to more of a supposed motive and personal gain for arguing them- than they do to simply figure out the truth....(sorry for the VERY LONG run on sentence...)

For all I know- you could be here to boast bc you have personal knowledge of him having been assisted and it upsets the ego that the police have not figured it out.

OR you could be a novice legal assistant striving to stretch any shred of that which could be barely deemed reasonable- in the interest of gathering any angle that you believe could substantiate a sliver of reasonable doubt...

Time and time again it has been stated that arrest warrants and search warrants do NOT need to prove anything more than probable cause.

While I do appreciate some brilliant points you have made and some very specific aspects you have shed light on- those points of appreciation are becoming further and further apart.

I was especially disturbed earlier when you neither admitted nor denied having any connection to Clark. Ego??? I do not know. What I do know is that talking in circles is not productive and only makes a few of us dizzy.

And there are many inaccuracies in your posts. We all make mistakes. However, you seem to cling to quite a bit of the Matlock Style of filling in the blanks and re-writing some already known facts...

I do not mean to bash you either. But at this point- I highly doubt your sincerity and motives for your post. I greatly appreciate someone arguing different points and perspectives. At first, I thought you to be a breath of fresh air....

But I spent a LOT of time this evening reading this thread in its entirety and then I took the time to carefully re-read it.

All I am saying is- I think it best if we argue what we have to work with- and yes, theories serve a purpose and we each formulate our own opinions- but to argue such grandiose hypotheticals? Well, I just do not see the purpose.

Instead I have tried to also read between the lines and I question the intent and purpose of your arguments.

And to the mods- I apologize as I do not wish to bash any poster here. I hope that this posting of mine is not removed as I think there could be a very real possiblity that this poster has a very specific purpose for all that he has posted here.

Artessia, I didn't realize that one had to be connected personally to this case to voice an opinion on it. I guess that means you're working for the D.A. or the New Haven police, if you already think Clark committed murder. Or do you believe in innocent until proven guilty like I do?

Artessia, I didn't realize that one had to be connected personally to this case to voice an opinion on it. I guess that means you're working for the D.A. or the New Haven police, if you already think Clark committed murder. Or do you believe in innocent until proven guilty like I do?

I ABSOLUTELY believe in innocent until proven guilty. I ALSO believe in being logical and not arguing that a zebra could possibly have pink polka dots when the evidence shows it is a striped zebra

And furthermore, I based my post on the collection of your many posts...And the questions asked of you. I also made specific mention of the aspects that I appreciated from your posts.

After a while though- it seemingly was above and beyond arguing pink polka dots

And I will say this also... Because of your posts- I am now leaning toward Clark having had help.... However, I still think you have a very precise motive and determination behind your particular postings and the particular "straws" you were beating to death... JMO though... nothing more...

I'm glad you are able to see through some of the evidence or at least see that Clark couldn't have acted alone.

Chanler and I are going in circles because we both have differing views on the writing of the affidavits, the semantics of what is written, and what is really required to illustrate that Clark could have done this.

There is nothing wrong with having different viewpoints. I don't question people's motives for thinking he's guilty, why should you feel compelled to question my motives for thinking he didn't do it?

No striped or polka dotted zebras in this case because nobody saw a zebra, yet they're trying to prove one was there because they found a zebra hair.

OR you could be a novice legal assistant striving to stretch any shred of that which could be barely deemed reasonable- in the interest of gathering any angle that you believe could substantiate a sliver of reasonable doubt...

This is one possibility that I have thought all along....

Originally Posted by Shlock Homes

I agree that court is where things will be worked out in more detail. In the meantime, you could say that an innocent man is stuck behind bars while a killer is walking around free, maybe even taking credit for Annie's research.

With this last statement, Mr. Homes is pointing the finger at someone on Annie's research team, perhaps even her advisor. The other possible reason that Mr. Homes is so vehemently, and adamantly twisting and ignoring evidence that connects Clark (and only Clark) to Annie's murder, is that he possibly has a vested interested, or some illogical deep-seeded personal reason or bias, for wanting the perpetrator to be someone connected to Annie's research.

I'm curious as to whom Mr Homes wants to be implicated for the murder and on what grounds?

With this last statement, Mr. Homes is pointing the finger at someone on Annie's research team, perhaps even her advisor. The other possible reason that Mr. Homes is so vehemently, and adamantly twisting and ignoring evidence that connects Clark (and only Clark) to Annie's murder, is that he possibly has a vested interested, or some illogical deep-seeded personal reason or bias, for wanting the perpetrator to be someone connected to Annie's research.

I'm curious as to whom Mr Homes wants to be implicated for the murder and on what grounds?

I don't know who should be implicated, they haven't presented all of the card swipes, nor have they indicated whose DNA was found on the lab coat. I also feel that the missing notebook is an important clue as to the motive for her death, but that's just me. I'm allowed to have an opinion.

The point I've been trying to make is that the evidence in the warrant doesn't show beyond a reason of a doubt that Clark committed murder. Yet most people have made up their minds he's guilty and anyone who disagrees is with that point of view is accused of being related or connected to Clark.

I do suspect that the evidence connecting him to the murder is flimsy, and that the purpose of releasing these warrants may be to prevent Clark from receiving a fair trial. Strangely, the lawyers for Clark have not put up much of a fight, but that might be part of their strategy. They might have enough of an alibi for Clark that shows he did not have the time or means to commit murder within the period they suspect he did it. Card swipes does not equal murder.

The Following User Says Thank You to Shlock Homes For This Useful Post:

I don't know who should be implicated, they haven't presented all of the card swipes, nor have they indicated whose DNA was found on the lab coat. I also feel that the missing notebook is an important clue as to the motive for her death, but that's just me. I'm allowed to have an opinion.

The point I've been trying to make is that the evidence in the warrant doesn't show beyond a reason of a doubt that Clark committed murder. Yet most people have made up their minds he's guilty and anyone who disagrees is with that point of view is accused of being related or connected to Clark.

I do suspect that the evidence connecting him to the murder is flimsy, and that the purpose of releasing these warrants may be to prevent Clark from receiving a fair trial. Strangely, the lawyers for Clark have not put up much of a fight, but that might be part of their strategy. They might have enough of an alibi for Clark that shows he did not have the time or means to commit murder within the period they suspect he did it. Card swipes does not equal murder.

Hi, Schlock. As you have surmised, I don't think that you have any personal connection with the case.

Several small points:

1. People are not innocent until they are proven guilty. (If they were, WebSleuths would not exist.) What the law says is that in a court of law, there is a presumption of innocence by jurors during the trial.

2. I honestly don't think that the evidence can be described accurately as flimsy. I've been following trials for decades and I would wager that most prosecutors would relinquish their wisdom teeth for evidence this impressive.

3. The prosecution argued against the release of the warrants; as did the defense. It was the press that petitioned for their being made public. There is no reason to imagine that this is part of some nefarious plot to prevent a fair trial.